We totally accept the science of the atom bomb, electricity, space travel and the science of sitting in our car, but people cannot accept the science of climate change. Why not?

Every single school child in western society at some time is faced with a science examination, the science forms the imperial evidence which guides all “progress” as a society, and whether we prosper or not.

A greenhouse effect causes temperatures to rise, water expands when heated, ice melts, the atmosphere has a fragile chemical composition. Basic scientific facts.

So why is an extremely powerful industry being constructed around a group of
scientifically failed schoolchildren, acting from their own vested interests, who deny the science of global warming ?

At the time when options are very limited, the biggest lobby ever assembled is waging war on all environmental legislation in America, paying lawyers to draft legislation which sees the environment as a hindrance to the “free market” system. Not only on what is proposed for the future, but on the proud history of environmental legislation since Rachel Carson.

All this based on the denial of climate change. So how do we respond to the denial industry when we confront it face to face?

Climate Science, where to find it.

The source of all data verifying the climate science (which is based on the principles taught in school) is contained within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (I.P.C.C.) Reports which are produced every 7 years. This is the sum total of ALL the published and peer reviewed scientific reports from all over the world based on independent research. It informs every sovereign government in the world who have act on climate change policy. The 2007 AR4 Reports are available to download at http://www.ipcc.ch/ It should be remembered that the data goes back to 2002/3 when that report was being prepared.

The (non) “debate” centres entirely around dis-information, which had its origins with the Ozone/Tobacco “disinformation campaign”. ALL the “sceptics claims that have been made have been “debunked” and not one change has been made to the “science” by way of “correction”. The science as Professor David Karoly says, “is in”.

There is no “evidence” for “manmade” climate change. Eg. The argument that the “climate has changed before” is answered in a basic way, “Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change”, there are then level’s of “deeper” science explanations which ultimately lead back to I.P.C.C. reports.

Deutsche Bank in partnership with Massachusetts Institute of Technology have carried out research into the “existing carbon content of the atmosphere” and now have a LED lit real time carbon clock opposite Grand Central Station in New York http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/ – a graphic demonstration of the level of “forcing” we are having.

Every second 800 metric tonnes of carbon are released into the global atmosphere, in
the time it took to write this sentence 120,000 metric tonnes almost have been emitted. 70,000,000 ( seventy million ) tonnes a day. 25,500,000,000 (25 billion metric tonnes per year) The total carbon ALREADY in the atmosphere is 3,685,744,680,300 (3.68 Trillion metric tonnes at the time of writing)
Stop reading this and see what it is now. These are not numbers that can be trivialised by saying our “contribution is only 1.3% of total global emissions.”

So we have a roof, roughly 12 miles above the earth/sea surface, which has a specific “volume” and chemical composition. Yes carbon is good for plants, but no one would want to stick their head into a bag with a supply of carbon from a car exhaust.
Thousands used to die every year from bronchitis in 1950’s and ‘60’s London “pea soup-ers” before the clean air regulation was introduced. Have we already forgotten that ?

It should be noted that the I.P.C.C. 2007 reports are reviewed and updated every 7 years. The 2007 Reports project sea level rise from “thermal expansion” only, and contains NO estimates for ice melt sea level rise. Not enough research had been carried out. This has now started and will “inform” the 2014 reports. This is how the “science” evolves, slowly.

Understanding why numbers are important.

Even activists can be mislead by apparently small figures, Prof. Albert Bartlett explains the pitfalls in misinterpreting small numbers and uses the mathematical certainty to demonstrate that he is right. His basic discussions on “exponential growth” are crucial to dealing with “spin”.

i.e.( Q). “what does 3% annual growth mean?” (A) – A doubling of the economy every 21 years

One common response to Australian climate activists is ; “our ‘contribution’ to climate change is only 1.3% of the global total, we shouldn’t act alone”

This argument is a deliberate half-truth with no context based on “numbers”. China has just overtaken U.S. as the planet’s biggest polluter. Both emit approximately 25% of total emissions. The rest of the 180+ countries in the U.N. emit the rest, so every country is responsible for a small part of the problem including Australia.

The U.K. emits 1.4% of the global total, from 60+ million people, which is also a very small part of the world total. Just a cursory glance at Australia’s population of 20+ million, reminds us each person in Australia, per capita, emits as much carbon into the atmosphere as 3 people in the U.K.

It can now be shown that although 1.3% is a small number, it represents a massive “number” in reality i.e. almost 600,000,000 metric tonnes. (600 million).

The cement industry is responsible for 6% of world totals. When I built a renovation at my last home 30 tonnes of carbon were emitted from the production of the concrete foundations. Thousands and thousands of tonnes of concrete are used in a high rise building.

1 Tonne of concrete = 2.5 metric tonnes of emissions.

The “Failure” of Environmentalism.

If it was not obvious in 2004, the I.P.C.C. Reports in 2007 provided the scientific “evidence” that the environment was is crisis, and yet for the last 4 years in Australia we
have plummeted to a level of debate which is utterly facile.

It is relevant to point out that there would be no Climate Tax proposals in Australia if the Greens didn’t have the Senate balance of power, and we can look to America to see what conservative politics has in store for a 2 party system.

Clive Hamilton has re-addressed the issue in a call for a “new level” of participation through the direct action in Europe. At the Sustainable Living Festival in Feb and again in a speech in April 2011 he gives 3 reasons for the possible failure of environmentalism; which need discussion urgently.

First, like most Australians some environmentalists find it hard to accept what the climate scientists are really saying. They do not believe, in their hearts, that things can be as bad as the science indicates. Like all of us, they are prone to engage in wishful thinking and cling to false hopes.

Of course whilst the “false hopes” are “assuaged”, and the denial debate settled, another 5 years has passed. We will then be left with the same science, with another 7 years research telling us how much worse things have become. Naomi Klein is currently researching a book on environmentalism and the reason for public disinterest as there has been a significant drop in public support.

This is shown by George Monbiot through his regular debunking of climate junk, with particular effect on David Bellamy who in 2000 stated that; “55 of the 65 known glaciers in the world had increased in size”.

It has to be noted that Green groups are also guilty of “bad science/climate extremism” which impacts upon the “science” and I.P.C.C. when” claims” that, “Mt Everest would be
snow free by 2035” are included in the final I.P.C.C. report in 2007.

www.monbiot.com has an archive full (including Bellamy) who have published denial claims and debunked them. In his latest he states;

David Bellamy’s at it again, with even dafter claims about climate change. By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 9th December 2008

We all create our own reality, and shut out the voices we do not want to hear. But there is no issue we are less willing to entertain than manmade climate change. Here, three worlds seem to exist in virtual isolation. In the physical world, global warming appears to be spilling over into runaway feedback: the most dangerous situation humankind has ever encountered. In the political world – at the climate talks in Poznan for example – our governments seem to be responding to something quite different: a minor nuisance which can be addressed in due course. Only the Plane Stupid protesters who occupied part of Stansted airport yesterday appear to have understood the scale and speed of this crisis. In cyberspace, by contrast, the response spreading fastest and furthest is flat-out denial.

The most popular article on the Guardian’s website last week was the report showing that 2008 is likely to be the coolest year since 2000(1). As the Met Office predicted, global temperatures have been held down by the La Nina event in the Pacific Ocean. This news prompted a race on the Guardian’s comment thread to reach the outer limits of idiocy. Of the 440 responses posted by lunchtime yesterday, about 80% insisted that manmade climate change is a hoax. Here are some clips from this conversation:

“This is a scam to get your money. …The only people buying into “global warming” have no experience with any of the sciences”.

“If we spend ANY money or cost one person their job because of this fraud it would be a crime. When will one of our politicians stand up and call this for what it is, BULLSH1T!”

“What a set of jokers these professors are … I think I understand more about climate change than them and I don’t get paid a big fat salary with all the perks to go with it.”

And so on, and on and on. The new figures have prompted similar observations all over the web. Until now the “sceptics” have assured us that you can’t believe the temperature readings at all; that the scientists at the Met Office, who produced the latest figures, are all liars; and that even if it were true that temperatures have risen, it doesn’t mean
anything. Now the temperature record (though only for 2008) can suddenly be trusted,
and the widest possible inferences can be drawn from the latest figures, though not, of course, from the records of the preceding century. This is madness.

Scrambled up in these comment threads are the memes planted in the public mind by the professional deniers employed by fossil fuel companies. On the Guardian’s forums you’ll find endless claims that the hockeystick graph of global temperatures has been debunked; that sunspots are largely responsible for current temperature changes; that the world’s glaciers are advancing; that global warming theory depends entirely on computer models; that most climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting a new ice age. None of this is true, but it doesn’t matter. The professional deniers are paid not to win the argument but to cause as much confusion and delay as possible. To judge by the comment threads, they have succeeded magnificently.

Monbiot devoted chapter 2 of his book “Heat” to the “denial industry”. He raises the issue of the vehemence displayed on climate blog responses, which are the typical for “middle media” outlets. Serious websites don’t allow the debate to generate to that low level, and it is very low. (see below)

The Media.

The scientific Peer review process takes weeks to analyse and publish, which inevitably happens, but all Australian environmental activists would be aware of the power of Andrew Bolt, News Ltd and most media outlets that rely on advertising for revenue.

The article had 3 days until a response on the Huffington Post – I doubt the response made Fox News, but a wild guess would tell me the original denial material got hours of Fox airtime. An over -zealous and rabid attitude of presentation can lead some individuals to very dark extreme places, as was recently displayed in Melbourne.

Film clip of a hanging noose being displayed at a lecture given by the head of the Potsdam Institute, Dr Karl Schellnhuber (see also links to Viscount Monckton below)

It is a sad fact that the lies and deceit circulate for weeks months and years, until it/he can be discredited and revealed

The usual television “interviewer” standard, (level) of understanding of climate science is simply not good enough to respond to false figures, data or scientific papers they have never heard of. Kerry O’Brien, generally considered the most “robust” interviewer on ABC, was easy meat for Dr Ian Plimer, who wrote a book, not a peer reviewed paper denying climate science.

Ali Moore on ABC “Lateline” interviewed Paul Gilding (author of the new book “The
Great Disruption”( http://paulgilding.com/ ) and Thomas Freidman, NYT columnist, and
author of a recent book “Hot Flat and Crowded” had both recently published on the imminent collapse in the environmental and economic systems.

Ali Moore first question after intro; “If climate change is a car ride, are we there yet?” The next 20 minutes was devoted to the guests giving a stark opinion of the future. Eventually Ali closed with;

“Well look, sadly we are out of time but I guess the message from you both is that we can get over this, the world is not doomed. At least you are both confident that we have the ability to take the action should we choose to.”

The Monckton factor.

Monckton uses media well, both in his personal delivery and the use of media philosophies of the Murdoch empire. He is confident he knows more than the journalist/interviewer and he knows of the general lack of knowledge of the issue. It is a sad fact that environmentalists will have to get used to, that lies and deceit circulate for a long time, even after they have been refuted and revealed. In the meantime, Monckton makes appearances at U.S. Senate enquiries into climate change, and on this spurious information decisions are made, or “not made” as turns out. He was invited to Australia
again by specific interest group for a specific purpose. He is currently the “go to” man of the denial industry. Whole websites have been dedicated to “Monckton denial” here are a couple ;

The Denial Industry

Climate science doesn’t begin with Al Gore, in 1965 Linden B Johnston was saying exactly
what Al Gore is saying now. It’s important to know that fact, because climate change isn’t some “melon” socialist plot, (“green” on the outside and “red” on the inside). Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, Malcolm Turnbull all good conservative stock. Who all advance the issue.

Misrepresentation

Gives a specific answer to this. The Ozone layer debate had only just begun its 24 year battle to the Montreal Protocol (1999). As science advances, it can answer previous “unknowns”. Prior to the clean air act in the U.S. and post war manufacturing boom times, coal plant sulphur particles which deflect the sun’s rays from earth are relevant as this graph shows, the decline in temperatures during the post war era. Environmental legislation stopped the London “pea soupers”.

The Denial Process

The process begins with a “scientist” publishing a “research” paper, or book, denying the overwhelming scientific opinion, in any journal that will accept it. The authors then have their “scientific” work popularised, or in some cases seized upon, by the media, e.g.

We’re supposed to believe that a recently released study by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell calls the standard estimates of climate sensitivity into question, even though other climate scientists immediately released a barrage of criticisms of the study, and
Hicken notes that another reporter couldn’t find any climate scientists who believed the study.Barry Bickmore – Associate Professor of geochemistry at Brigham Young University.

If you notice the dates between this and the next link, there are over 3 weeks of “free” airtime this can fly. The “media machines” then take this information by a “scientist” and run with it. The media, as has recently been revealed through enquiries into News Ltd, runs its own agenda far removed from reality.

Ultimately, AS HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED, a scientific response debunks the original paper and it is published in the journal.

Monbiot and Gelbspan and Maddox tell of the multi million dollar funding from the fossil fuel industry corporations, Exxon Mobil being the most long standing, the biggest profit generator in U.S. history through fossil fuel development. The ” Am Way” is eminently “exportable” to Australia and even though “industry lobbying” was exposed in 2006 by Clive Hamilton in his naming of “The Australian Climate Mafia”. They have not taken a back step since, pouring all the money and resources necessary to cast doubt on “the
science”.

The U.S. “Tea Party” (funded by Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil et al) and United States Republicans are now undoing all the environmental progress and existing Environmental Laws in America since Rachel Carson, based entirely upon climate denial.

So strong is the belief now, that ALL regulation should be removed and have it left to the “markets” to decide best outcomes, that the extreme right in the denial movement, has captured the Republicans and a section of the Democrats.

Michele Bachmann Pledges to Have the EPA’s “Doors Locked and Lights Turned Off”

“We should be able to choose if we want to burn an inefficient lamp”. Michelle Backman

Remember Ali Moore and her closing line, ”we can do something if we choose to”- this
shows the complete disregard for the earth and the palpable hubris that came along with “freedom of choice”.

The Tea Party is actively pursuing the removal of every restriction on profit and is now dismantling the basis of all environmental achievements. At present the President
has a veto, but this is new, more extreme. Avoidance of action is one thing, removing
environmental standards is another.

House Republicans aim to defund the Environmental Protection Agency, rolling back 40 years’ progress on clean air and water

There are very interesting blogs on the “process” necessary to “accept” global warming and the prospect of dealing with denial, websites publishing the “individual’s” necessary inner analysis to find a voice for the planet.

Not many of us are climate scientists, so we use varying ways to cope with a world in denial. The above links connect to many useful websites that in turn, in my opinion,
have links to other reputable information.

One final source I must mention is David Spratt’s news updates. He co-authored “Climate Code Red, the case for a Climate Emergency” , and has been presenting a science based newsletter with impeccable information sources for a very long time. carbonequityproject-subscribe@topica.com

Can the current economic growth system be the basis for the
Green Economy ?

The current economies of western industrialised society are moribund and
unable to provide the basis for the transition to the Green Economy without
massive structural change.

Chinese rating agency Dagong, which has links to the government through its chairman, had downgraded the US’s credit rating from A+ to A, with a negative outlook. Dagong has made a name for itself by hitting out at its three Western rivals – Moody’s, Fitch and Standard & Poor’s – saying they caused the financial crisis by failing to disclose risk properly.

The big three agencies have consistently awarded Washington their highest possible “AAA” rating – allowing the US to take on more debt at lower cost. China, sitting on the world’s biggest foreign exchange reserves of about $US3.2 trillion ($2.98 trillion) as of the end of June, is the largest holder of US Treasuries.

As we survey the wreckage of the 2008 global financial crisis and the complete lack of remedial action to avert a similar crisis, we are also faced with the imminent dilemma of not only the necessary transition to a green economy, but the advent of a reversal of green initiatives by a rampant neo liberal faction that bases itself on climate change denial.

This is witnessed by the current barrage of the winding back of environmental legislation now being pushed through US congress;

We’re not looking at some modest cuts here and there – Congress is considering spending bills that could completely decimate government’s ability to regulate clean air and water, while turning clean energy programs into an afterthought.

There is now a committed global group who have unlimited financial resources to travel the world spreading lies and misunderstandings to an eager audience who have found a comfort level in the last decade that they are unwilling to sacrifice.

Ban Ki Moon’s frustration at the complete lack of direction within the UNFCCC, and attempts to formulate a regulatory process whereby the countries of the General Assembly would voluntarily agree to mandatory emissions reductions aimed at averting catastrophic climate change, forced him to re-orient the debate back to the basic formulation of the enabling document, Agenda 21, and Sustainable Development.

This document was the product of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and set out the environmental and social agenda for the 21st century. It compromised 2 sections; protection of the earth’s atmosphere, and delivering those who were suffering abject poverty an equitable standard of living.

The bi-products of Agenda 21 were the UNFCCC and the Millennium Development Goals, neither are achieving their goals as we approach the 20th anniversary of the global commitment to fulfil these “promises”. We are given the “spin” that “progress is being made but we must do better”.

It is this papers position that if the “truth” be known, we are further away from the lofty goals of Agenda 21 now, than we were in 1992, having just witnessed the most greed
inspired decade of self -indulgence, environmental degradation and waste that the planet has ever experienced. It has also been the hottest decade for temperatures ever recorded.

Each “age” adds something to the collective, but now we are collectively at a standstill,
to the point where the sum of our “individual choices” has produced an economic, social and environmental disaster, bordering on collapse.

Only 10 years into the new millennium, we are faced with the potential societal collapse across the triple bottom line on an unprecedented scale, and now must regularly face a return to the collapse of the global financial system. The same financial system that many authors see as the “growth machine” that is the only vehicle that can make a transition to the green economy possible.

The recent farcical negotiations on the U.S. debt ceiling have proved the undoing, within many circles, of America’s status as a “superpower”, it is divided, has more per capita debt than Greece and no signs of a united determination to alter the greed or hubris of the richest 10%.

70% of the U.S. growth economy is dependent upon retail sales, in the country that has near terminal unemployment and a disappearing middle class, and bears witness to the practice of growth rate “revisionism” after the fact, which gives little or no optimism within its borders to foster the necessary confidence that the American people are being told the truth.

The European economy, the biggest economy in the world is, on the other hand, being forced through hoops and over hurdles to get loans that will see a prolonging of its “flat” economic growth. The problem there, being that the chronic debt that engulfs Europe, is further compounded by high unemployment, increasing debt levels and an endless regime of austerity.

Currently this “double dipping” left over from 2008, is forecast to take 10 years to overcome. This means that western industrialised society is not in a position to provide the stimulus to generate the Green Economy.

The major omission from Ban Ki Moon’s WESS is the failure to consider the man in the street. WESS lays out the stark objective of “finding” $15-20 trillion to replace the current energy infrastructure in western society. This equates to “only” 2% of world GDP per year, but is this in a “good” year or a “bad” year?

His “success stories”, of the rapid transformation of Portugal’s renewable energy sector are in tatters as austerity measures rip the guts out of further advances, a fast
train service between Lisbon and Madrid being the latest casualty. The Montreal Protocol is a sham, taking 24 years to ban a substance that has caused, (and will cause until the year 2050) untold damage to the atmosphere.

The capitalist growth cycle is a voracious closed loop. Investment provides jobs which provide income for the man in the street to afford to buy goods which provide profits which are then re-invested to cause more environmental degradation to provide more jobs.

This cycle is now broken, and perhaps just in time.

The 2008 GFC broke that cycle. Until the damn wall broke, “consumers” had been fed an endless line of “Ponzi” credit based upon the escalation of the value of their homes. They felt rich to the point where household savings in the U.K. dropped into negative. As long as they were being told that this endless caravanserai would last forever the consumer maintained their part of the bargain and fed the capitalist cycle.

The housing default crisis put an end to that and proved that property bubbles were no cause for confidence in exponential growth, particularly in personal wealth. The individual is always at the bottom of the food chain, and is currently being positioned as the last person holding the parcel. In response to that, people have saved what money they have, which is why the economic growth model is currently broken.

The massive corporate and financial debts incurred by the banking system are being amortized amongst the millions, in what is now accepted as the socialising of loss. This is proving to be a flawed system response as it maintains the break in the consumer cycle and is a fundamental mistake being made by conservative governments worldwide who look to the same penalised people to regenerate their broken system by buying “stuff”.

It is impossible to see the population of Europe and America being “duped” twice. The citizens of many countries have taken to the streets to demonstrate their disgust at being made to pay the penalty for recklessness by others higher up the income ladder. So the question has to be asked will society ever return to the pre 2008 halcyon days of growth and hedonism?

There are 39.5 years left, as the science tells us, for the world population to make a 50% cut in global carbon emissions, to maintain temperature increases within the 2 degree limit above pre industrial times, the atmospheric carbon content target is set at 450ppm. In western industrial society this equates to minimum 75% emissions cuts in European countries, and 90-100% cuts in high polluting countries such as America and Australia.

Current “offers on the table” fall way short of that target, opening a pathway to temperature increases of up to 4 degrees above pre industrial levels with an atmospheric carbon content of anything up to 650 ppm. A change in climate that no scientific
commentator would state can support life as we know it.

That is at current population levels, however, there are projections that the global population will reach 9 billion people by 2050. This additional population is forecast to present in the “developing world” where climate change impacts and food security concerns are highest, prompting the WESS to project that another “true green” revolution in food production is also necessary.

The WESS states that the transition to a Green Economy has to happen within a 30 – 40 year time span. A global energy transition, even without an agricultural revolution within 30 to 40 years, is unprecedented in world history. The report clearly states that this must be driven by government and government regulation.

In making this “demand”, the report is severely lacking in tackling the real issue that pertains to the current attitude of the man/woman in the street, and similarly the attitude of corporate America, the generator of still unbelievable returns from the fossil fuel industry. It is only through these eyes that a sustainable future can be seen. The WESS also pays scant regard to alternatives to the existing growth paradigm and spends too little
time discussing the very tangible limits to growth.

This issue has inspired writers who see this as an immediate problem (Prof Tim Jackson – Prosperity without Growth. new economics foundation) and inspired a “degrowth” movement in Europe. Non of the aforementioned would deny the technological benefits of growth to date, but the benefits of “novelty growth” (Jackson) must be called into question, and a system of growth based upon benefits to wellbeing introduced.

Having said all this we know that in the last 4 years global GDP has been at an average of 4%. A very “healthy” economic outcome generated by the growth in developing countries (the BRICS) nations and “tiger” economies, with the leader of course being China. China has also assisted some western countries such as Australia to avoid the worst outcomes of 2008 by importing the resources which Australia and others currently have in abundance.

An interesting aside to this is that the export bonanza has also allowed Australia to be in the sound financial position to introduce a carbon tax. Recent economic results however have given testimony to the “2 tier” economy that Australia now has, where although employment is at historical lows of 4%+, it is only through resource exports that the economy is profitable. The “service” economy that makes up a large part of the financial
system is in decline as in other parts of western society. Australia suffered the same “disease” as the majority of western countries of “outsourcing” its manufacturing base to China and other parts of Asia.

Consequently it is the “BRICS” and “tiger” economies that are now driving global growth.

This is proving to be beneficial to another aspect of Agenda 21, – the Millennium Development Goals. The WESS stresses the need for global growth to encompass the developing world to alleviate embedded poverty. This is happening. It cites the 600 million in China who have been lifted from the $1.25 per day “income bracket”. However,
the veracity of these claims cannot be justified in terms of the relativity with western levels of income at this stage.

China now struggles with inflation and massive environmental problems and the way it deals with this is crucial. After having captured the majority of global manufacturing China will have a massive impact on how the Green Economy evolves. There is no doubt that the pace of growth in China has completely disarmed the regulatory process to the point where the poorest are now prematurely suffering the unethical or downside of growth patterns.

Notwithstanding this, China is now outpacing the west in the race to the Green Economy even though it is still classified as a “developing country” albeit with the highest national emissions generation in the world.

We are now left with a 2 tier “global” economy, where the east is the factory and the west is the service/financial sector, albeit presently failed. Many reports have been written in western journals detailing how the Green Economy can be the saviour of the western world but this is delusionary at best given the parlous state of debt levels already in existence and the necessity to “find” $15 – 20 trillion dollars to replace the west’s existing
energy infrastructure.

The WESS is, along with its cursory discussion on limits to growth, also silent on the appearance of this new Green Economy which it is advocating by the year 2050.

What it does say on the “Green economy” is that a massive “technology transfer” to the developing world is necessary, and it is hard to see the required elevation in welfare within the developing world being maintained without massive education and job creation being a focal point of their development .

It is this papers argument that the developing world must maintain the bulk of global GDP growth. This is “inferred” in WESS but not specifically stated, it can only be through
development within this sector that the necessary impetus can be attained for the Green Economy, and go anywhere near to fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals.

It is now time for the western world to bite the bullet, the dubious prospect of the masses returning to “the good old days” are fading with every unemployment reading, with every retail sales report, and with every GDP revision. It is now necessary to change the structure of society, successfully.

We are now witnessing the transformation of the “greatest financial crisis since the great depression” to the “greatest financial crisis” period. The remnants of western society are hopelessly equipped to deal with a financial system that no one has any confidence in. Those that caused the financial crisis are now advocating more of the same to get us out of the crisis, isn’t this Einsteins definition of madness?

The system does not have to crash before we accept it is beyond repair, what needs to be overcome is the right wing mantra of small government, government spending reductions and less taxation.

A regulatory system for the global financial sector MUST be introduced as it is the only “profitable” sector in the western economy. Ross Gelbspan has long advocated a quarter of a cent tax on each financial transaction as a way of delivering a green transition.

The false mantra that jobs, jobs, jobs, are the salvation of society must be tempered. Any “Green Economy” must impose limits to growth, which also means a corresponding limit to employment. The natural answer to this is re training and job sharing, as advocated by Jackson. (Prosperity without Growth).

Spain’s socialist heir apparent Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba has openly said there will be no more building booms in Spain, what is offered is training programmes to re- educate
workers, hopefully in the Green Economy. Spain cannot rely on tourism and bullfighting to pull its economy out of the ruin, fortunately it is more advanced than many countries in the transition to renewable energy.

The world must scale down its expectations, it is no surprise that the only reduction in global emissions occurred during the global financial crisis, to induce this as an environmental panacea is wrong, but it gives a hint of the necessary transformation to a Green Economy. Whilst it may be economically blasphemous for pundits to advocate a Steady State Economy, the stability that this infers is exactly what is necessary at present in western industrialised society, as opposed to the roller coaster of (ir)rational economics.

In the interests of humanity, western society is “obliged” to acknowledge its historical part in the looming environmental crisis, we are obliged to scale down our expectations of financial prosperity having already attained a standard of living that is proving dangerous to our wellbeing. The speed and scale of the developing world’s transformation will bring its own realisation that the path it has embarked upon is flawed, just look at how the west messed it up. Human beings have the same urges, it doesn’t matter where they live.

Dick Cheney’s mantra that “the American way of life is non- negotiable” has to be realised for what it is, the basis for societal collapse. No-one wants that, one has to presume that even the debt ceiling negotiators realise that after the event. Barack Obama, has proved to be a tool of Wall Street which has also now been accepted as great driver of the 2008 collapse, the basis of economic growth is now as unstable as recession, promising only “business as usual” which Ban Ki Moon discredits very early in the WESS

It is now time to stop the exponential growth and concentrate on things that matter as human beings, think about the stability that a Steady State Economy implies, and work toward implementing the Green Economy with what we can salvage from our prosperity to date.